Search

To paraphrase Mark Twain, rumors of the print book’s death have been greatly exaggerated. About ten years ago, it seemed like books kept showing up on the endangered species list, but print books continue to outsell e-books in every category. Independent bookstores are also making a comeback in the age of Amazon, drawing more people than ever. And even though print books continue to outsell e-books, the publishing industry, in both print and digital formats, has an environmental impact. The manufacturing of e-book readers, for example, requires resources and contributes electronic waste.

The publishing industry supply chain has a complex global footprint

Nearly 700 million books were sold in 2019, and the carbon footprint of these printed books is complicated. After they are printed, these books need to be packaged and delivered. The logging of trees at the start of the process leaves a complicated web of impacts, from pollution to the destruction of natural habitat to carbon emissions. And the logging of all this data presents challenges, too, as the production of paper, transportation, manufacturing facilities, warehouses, retail stores and libraries all require water and energy.

While we have all been reading these books over the last few years, the publishing industry has made strides to improve its overall sustainability. In 2016, Penguin Random House (PRH), the largest of the Big Five publishing houses, announced its 2020 Social Responsibility Commitments, which set two targets: to source 100 percent of its paper from mills certified by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative or the Forest Stewardship Council and to cut its carbon emissions by 10 percent. By the end of December 2019, the company had purchased 98 percent of its certified paper by mills that had earned sustainability certification. PRH had also surpassed its 10 percent goal emissions goal, adding that it could likely reduce its emissions by 20 percent by 2025.

Penguin Random House is determined to go carbon neutral

With those achievements in hand, Bertelsmann, which acquired majority ownership of PRH in 2019, announced plans in February 2020 that they would be carbon neutral by 2030, with PRH’s targets as an integral part of the strategy to meet that goal. The plan includes switching to 100 percent renewable power, improving energy efficiency, working with partners to reduce emissions from the print and digital supply chain, and finding a way to offset the rest of those emissions.

Typically, when we think of books, print or e-books, the sustainability aspect centers on paper or e-waste. While those are probably the biggest direct environmental impacts, the carbon neutrality goal is important because it looks beyond the materials. The energy and water required to produce, transport, and distribute books across the globe is considerable - and the extent of the impact is unclear.

The most recent industry-wide evaluation of carbon emissions coming from the publishing industry dates back to 2008. And estimates can range widely because of the number of variables involved, including where and how paper is sourced, the type of ink used, and manufacturing facilities’ energy use. In order to set its science-based targets, Bertelsmann must be clear about its own carbon footprint. As more companies in this space step up to reduce their own emissions, better data will need to be collected, and they will need to share this information to enable other publishers to emulate such goals.

Publishers face risks from deforestation to water scarcity

Deforestation is estimated to represent 8 to 10 percent of global carbon emissions. But energy and transportation top the list of emitters. Then we need to add another factor, and that is the reality water will likely be the resources most affected by climate change. All of these challenges play a role in what could happen in the future with the books we enjoy.

Tackling climate change requires every stakeholder within the publishing industry to contribute to succeeding on the world’s most pressing challenge. Books have fed our minds for thousands of years; now, those who publish them can help solve our greatest challenge.

Image credit: Pexels; Unsplash; Pexels

Food waste is a stubborn problem in the developed world. Globally, about a third of all food produced is wasted, which is about 1.3 billion tons per year. This statistic is even more staggering when considering that approximately 820 million people around the world do not have enough to eat. In the U.S. alone, experts estimate that 30 to 40 percent of the food we purchase goes to waste. Clearly, reducing food waste could benefit people directly, but it could also help to protect our water and energy supplies.

According to a study, 4.2 trillion gallons of water were used to produce that wasted food, half of it going to uneaten fruits and vegetables. Another study noted that about 10 percent of energy use in the U.S. goes into growing, processing, packaging, and shipping food. Further, neither of these studies consider the embedded energy in water or the embedded water in energy, so taken together, those figures should be even higher.

Consumers’ expectations contribute to food waste

In the U.S., we have been conditioned to buy only pristine produce, leaving the imperfect specimens to go to waste. Supermarkets have tried to figure out how to sell “ugly” produce, but poor sales led many of those who had started such programs to quietly end them. Some farmer’s markets and community-supported agriculture programs have had a little more success, possibly because expectations of perfectly formed fruit and veg are a little different when getting produce directly from a farm. But this has also ignited an entire industry around start-ups aiming to capitalize on food waste, with the side effect of taking business away from those small farms.

Food is nothing if not complicated. Some chains are trying to repurpose food that would otherwise be wasted by churning it into other products, like the United Kingdom retailer Tesco’s experiment with unsold bread. Meanwhile, a Dutch startup is converting unwanted apples and pears into a sugar substitute.

Which raises the point of a new trend that has emerged with surplus foods: upcycling. Upcycling has been a stable in the fashion and home goods world for some time, so it makes sense that it would make its way to food as well. For example, TBJ Foods is taking surplus produce and even surplus bacon and turning it into jams. Upcycling can be taken to centers to feed people quickly or, like TBJ Foods, preserved to lengthen shelf life.

We need to re-think agriculture’s relationship with water

Further, we should not have this much surplus to deal with in the first place. Agriculture is a water-intensive industry, and its problems are politically, socially and environmentally complex. Over a third of America’s vegetables and two-thirds of our fruits and nuts are grown in California. Despite all its efforts on climate change, the state is already feeling the impacts, especially droughts and wildfires.

Water and agriculture continue to be highly charged issues in California. With every new drought comes new renewed calls for how the state waters its farms. The reality is that the country as a whole will likely need to rethink how we structure our agricultural system to be more sustainable under the new normal of climate change.

Agriculture accounts for 80 percent of California’s water consumption. Rethinking how crops are irrigated as well which crops to prioritize, i.e., those requiring less water, are critical. Looking towards Israel, a country with a similar climate and that has essentially solved its water problem through a combination of policies, including drip irrigation, could provide some direction. And experts in California are already experimenting with innovative solutions on the ground – including ideas to generate power.

Food waste has an undeniable effect on water and energy

The energy footprint of food is critical to the solution also, up and down the supply chain, from the fields to the table. Increasing the deployment of renewable energy into the electric grid will help reduce water demand in the energy sector, freeing it up for other uses. Likewise, improving water efficiency and reducing water demand where possible will lower energy consumption.

Our food system is complex, as copious amounts of water and energy are required along the entire value chain. Better data is needed to fully understand the energy-water-food nexus, and with better data comes better solutions. Figuring out how we adapt to a changing climate will require rethinking how we grow our food as well as how we consume it.

Image credit: Pixabay

Researchers at Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) are predicting a coral bleaching event during the southern hemisphere’s summer. Analysts say the event could be the most widespread seen to date, but not as intense as previous occurrences.

The Great Barrier Reef has seen bleaching, overfishing and pollution, which not only harm wildlife, but also threaten its Wold Heritage status. The back-to-back bleaching events of 2016 and 2017 affected two-thirds of the extensive reef. Still, the GBRMPA says hope is not lost.

Despite threats and bleak possibilities, GBRMPA’s chief scientist, David Wachenfeld, told reporters in Sydney last year: “With the right mix of local actions to improve the resilience of the system and global actions to tackle climate change in the strongest and fastest way possible, we can turn that around.”

The business case for saving coral

Coral bleaching occurs with a rise in water temperature or intense ultraviolet rays. The resulting whiteness occurs when the coral expels its mutualistic algae called zooxanthellae. This leaves the coral vulnerable and without a source of food, which normally the algae would photosynthesize.

The loss of coral doesn’t happen in isolation, though. Coral provides the building blocks of reefs and shelter and food to the marine life that live within these structures. Without healthy coral, the wellbeing of fish and wildlife is threatened.

Thus, major industries for coastal communities, including fishing and tourism, hang in the balance. In 2017, the international financial advisory consultancy Deloitte calculated that activity in and around the Great Barrier Reef created 64,000 jobs and generated approximately US$5 billion for Australian businesses and communities.

The report emphasizes the immense impact of the reef: “The livelihoods and businesses the Great Barrier Reef supports across Australia far exceeds the numbers supported by many industries we would consider too big to fail.”

Reports about the reef and predictions for its future may seem bleak, but just this month, marine biologists have discovered dozens of new coral species along the Great Barrier Reef.

“On almost every dive we were finding species that aren’t in the books,” Professor Andrew Baird from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University told SciTechDaily.

Are businesses stepping to the plate for the Great Barrier Reef?

Two years ago, the Australian government invested more than US$377 million to support the Great Barrier Reef. Most was allocated toward the Great Barrier Reef Foundation (GBRF), which monitors and restores the reef, protecting it from pollution and the crown-of-thorns starfish.

This marked the largest funding commitment for reef conservation and management in Australian history.

Business is part of the solution. Over the past 18 years the GBRF has received $2.5 from the private sector for every $1 from taxpayers, GBRF chairman, John Schubert, told the Australian Financial Review. And the foundation’s board of directors includes corporate leaders and scientists alike. Schubert himself was chairman of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.

Despite doubts about corporate interests in the foundation, the government saw the GBRF as the most effective investment toward the reef. According to the Australian Financial Review, the Prime Minister was impressed by how well the GBRF has been able to leverage financial support from the private sector for its activities in the reef.

Yet, there remains work to be done on the climate front. Coal remains Australia's second-largest employer, after iron ore. And though UNESCO has, as of yet, avoided putting the Great Barrier reef on its “List of World Heritage in Danger,” if water temperatures continue to rise summer after summer, that may no longer be the case.

Image credit: Daniel Pelaez Duque/Unsplash

In 2018, Congress responded to widespread reports of in-flight sexual harassment by assigning a task force to address the issue. The work of the so-named “National In-Flight Sexual Misconduct Task Force” has yet to be implemented, though some airlines are already taking steps themselves. However, if the effort continues to focus on guidance for victims, it fails to address the root cause.

Sexual harassment and the airline industry

Airlines face an especially complex task in terms of addressing in-flight sexual harassment.

Internally, employee relations are still tinged with the legacy of sex-segregated roles and promotional strategies focusing on the appeal of female flight attendants. That legacy is reflected a stream of verbal and physical sexual harassment directed at flight attendants by passengers.

Over and above these issues, airlines are also trying to cope with passengers assaulting other passengers.

The passenger-on-passenger problem is a direct bottom line issue as well as an ethical one. As reported by USA Today last week, passengers are taking legal action against airlines that fail to respond appropriately when they report abuse.

Sexual harassment and the information gap

Regardless of legacy issues, airlines can avail themselves of a wealth of experience and data-driven best practices that address sexual harassment issues between employees.

When airline passengers and in-flight employees enter the mix, however, a widespread lack of tools and training specific to sexual harassment has persisted.

That information gap was highlighted in a national survey of flight attendants in 2017.

Of the flight attendants participating in the survey, 35 percent reported verbal sexual harassment from passengers within the past year. For another 18 percent, the abuse was physical.

Despite the widespread nature of the problem, only 7 percent of those experiencing harassment reported the passenger to their employer.

The others took various measures to avoid, diffuse, or deflect the situation. Overall, measures like these indicate that they lack the tools, training, and institutional support to deal appropriately with the situation.

A similar information gap surfaced when flight attendants were surveyed about passenger-on-passenger abuse.

In a 2017 survey, 20% of flight attendants reported having to intervene in a passenger-on-passenger assault. However, their airline contacted law enforcement in less than half of those incidents, and most respondents indicated that they were unaware of any guidance or training issued by their employer.

Progress on sexual harassment training

To their credit, several airlines have taken steps to update their training and guidance for passenger-on-passenger assault, a move encouraged by the Association of Flight Attendants.

In 2018 Alaska Airlines also added a line to its preflight script, encouraging passengers to report “unwelcome behavior” to flight attendants.

Though gently worded, that does convey the message that the airline has policies in place, and that flight attendants are trained to follow them.

The idea has not gained much traction, though last month Southwest Airlines updated its script to include a similar advisory.

Among other reasons, individual airlines may be hesitant to provide pre-flight guidance on reporting bad behavior, because it preemptively raises the perception that the airline is less safe than others.

Task force addresses sexual harassment in flight

It is also possible that other airlines are waiting for the Task Force to provide uniform guidance on messaging, before they update their scripts.

Some advocates doubt that the Task Force will be effective, including at least one victim of in-flight assault. However, the Task Force did hold a series of meetings and listening sessions last year. The effort focused on  employee training and guidance as well as passenger awareness. Data collection and sexual harassment definition were also part of the discussion.

That is a good start, but it does not address the central issue, which is that flight attendants are on the front lines of a culture that excuses bad behavior.

Until more forceful steps are taken to remind passengers that sexual harassment is in fact a crime, the training-and-guidance approach continues to place the burden on both victims of such behavior and on flight attendants.

Alaska Airlines provided a written version of crime-based messaging in 2019. Its in-flight magazine included a warning to all passengers, admonishing them to “behave in a safe and respectful manner at all times.”

“We respect the privacy and well-being of our guests and employees,” the warning continued. “We do not tolerate inappropriate verbal, digital or physical conduct of any kind, including sexual harassment, invasive photography and assault.”

In addition to advising passengers to report “unwelcome behavior” to an employee, the warning specifically advised passengers that “any crime committed in flight is a federal offense.”

Advocating for federal action

If the Task Force does recommend industry-wide changes that focus more attention on deterring potential perpetrators, that would be a significant step forward with a ripple effect beyond the airline industry.

The #MeToo movement notwithstanding, American culture is still deeply rooted in attitudes that excuse bad behavior and punish victims for speaking up.

By unifying around federal guidelines that deter bad behavior, the airline industry could help shift the cultural landscape toward a new normal.

As an analogous situation, consider the national conversation over gun safety. Corporate leaders in the retail area have begun to realize that lax gun laws foster critical safety issues for their brick-and-mortar business. However, most have been reluctant to exercise their right to outright forbid firearms on their premises.

Some gently “request” that gun owners voluntarily leave their weapons behind, but that is the main extent of it.

More recently, Kroger, Starbucks and other retailers have come to understand that the gentle approach is not working. Inspired partly by the youth gun safety movement in the aftermath of the Parkland massacre, they are beginning to partner with grassroots organizations to advocate for state and federal laws that help ensure a safe environment for their customers.

That deterrence-oriented approach marks a clear contrast with the present practice of relying on store clerks, private security guards and bystanders to respond after the fact.

Avoiding a messaging risk

By being more up-front and specific about sexual harassment deterrence, airlines may also avoid the risk involved in messaging that vaguely encourages passengers to report “unwelcome behavior.”

The list of unwelcome in-flight behavior appears to be growing well past sexual harassment, with anything from body odor to religious discrimination in the mix.

The discrimination risk is particularly troubling, given the anti-immigrant environment stirred up in recent years.

The spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus has added yet another new wrinkle that could result in misreporting based on a person’s appearance, language, or dress and accessories.

All in all, federal guidelines that call for a more forceful, specific, and deterrence-oriented approach to in-flight sexual harassment could help shield airlines from all sorts of bad behavior, including discriminatory misreporting.

Image credit: Owen Lystrup/Unsplash

In the years following the financial meltdown of 2008, researchers tracked a significant upswing in secondhand purchases by cost-conscious consumers. The economic incentive to buy used clothing has abated since then, but other factors are going strong.

Ethical and environmental concerns, consumer interest in hunting for unique and unusual items, and the ease of online shopping are all adding more fuel to the resale fire. Now Gap, Inc. and other leading retailers are beginning to embrace the opportunity to realize bottom-line benefits from the clothing resale market, which can bolster their corporate responsibility profiles, too.

Gap partners with ThredUP to promote reuse and resale

Dipping into the resale field may seem counterintuitive for a retail brand. However, it may offer retailers an opportunity to attract new consumers and cement ties with existing fans in ways that conventional textile recycling does not.

For example, last week Gap announced a promotional partnership with the leading online clothing resale company ThredUP, to begin in April. Under the agreement, Gap will make ThredUP’s colorful “Clean Out” shipping bags or labels available at select stores, including Gap, Banana Republic, Athleta, and Janie and Jack.

The Clean Out bags are a key part of ThredUP’s strategy for attracting sellers in the increasingly competitive online resale market. The company provides both the bags and the shipping, making it easy and convenient for sellers to bundle up their unwanted items and send them off.

On its part, Gap will benefit from ThredUP’s seller incentive policy. ThredUP sellers can earn cash or credit, and those using credits will earn a 15 percent bonus if they redeem them at any of the participating Gap, Inc. brands.

Tackling the clothing waste problem

For shoppers who are increasingly aware of ethical and environmental concerns, the credit redemption and bonus incentives could help take some of the sting out of buying new items.

The partnership with ThredUP could also help Gap offset a thorny waste management problem. In its recent sustainability report, Gap, Inc. took note of the challenge of recycling waste from its retail stores. The company set a 2020 goal to divert more waste away from landfills, but it does not have direct control over waste management at three-quarters of its retail sites, instead dealing with a patchwork of different landlords and waste management companies.

Gap has worked with some of its largest landlords to improve recycling, but the solutions are slow to arrive. In the meantime, the company moved to redesign packaging use and reduce waste at the source.

That leads to another potential problem, in that package redesign can be a fraught and risky endeavor for a brand. However, the ThredUP partnership provides an opportunity for Gap to enlist consumers as supporters of the effort.

The clothing resale market: The numbers add up

The ThredUP partnership also enables Gap to position itself as a solution-seeker for a problem of eye-popping proportions that extends far beyond its retail operations.

According to one estimate, the average U.S. consumer throws away about 80 pounds of clothing annually. Only 15 percent is recycled, even though almost 100 percent of all textiles are potentially recyclable.

ThredUP has calculated that if all consumers substituted just one used item for a new purchase in a single year, the savings would amount to almost 6 billion pounds of carbon emissions or the equivalent of taking half a million cars off the road. Other statistics cited by the company include the potential for saving 25 billion gallons of water, 11 billion kilowatt-hours of energy and 449 million pounds of waste.

More retailers pin hopes on the clothing resale market

CNBC took a deep dive into the resale clothing market last week. As described by reporter Lauren Thomas, there is “no verdict yet” about the raw bottom-line benefits of resale ventures for leading retailers.

Nevertheless, activity in this sector has stepped up in recent months. Macy’s, J.C. Penney, and the Madewell brand of J. Crew are all testing pop-up shops curated by ThredUP at select stores. Last month Nordstrom also launched its own resale shop, online and onsite at its New York flagship store.

Analysts expect the resale market to continue growing. It stands at 6 percent of the total U.S. clothing and footwear industry currently, and Thomas cites a Wells Fargo analyst who foresees an increase to 10 percent within the next two years.

That could prove to be an underestimate, as a confluence of factors come together. In addition to increased ethical and environmental awareness, the financial factor may soon loom large again. Some top-line employment figures in the U.S. indicate a healthy consumer base, but other economic indicators — including the cost of housing, health care, student debt, childcare and transportation — reveal a much more complex retail picture, one in which consumers are cutting back where they can.

The resale numbers appear to support this trend. Last spring, ThredUP released its seventh annual resale report with the firm GlobalData Retail and found a significant upswing in resale interest among women. According to their data, 56 million women bought secondhand items in 2018, representing a substantial increase of 27 percent from the year before.

The prospects for sales growth are also good. The report surveyed resale shoppers and found that at least half of them plan to increase their resale buying in the coming years. It will be interesting to see what next year's sales report will bring. 

Image credit: Gap, Inc. via Business Wire

Critics often argue that because electric vehicles are often powered by electricity produced at coal-fired power plants and other fossil fuel facilities, they aren’t necessarily any cleaner than gasoline-powered cars. Their logic is that while all-electric cars do not emit carbon dioxide from the tailpipe, they are still responsible for significant emissions during recharging.

On a recent China Global Television Network episode of “The Heat,” panelist Tu Le, managing director of the strategic advisory Sino Auto Insights, agreed with that logic, to a point. In the short term, Le said, the arguments that EVs produce their own form of emissions may be true. However, he—like many others before him—predicted that carbon emissions resulting from electricity production will decline in the future. “In the next 15 to 20 years, as energy storage becomes more mainstream, and solar and alternative forms of energy become mainstream, that [criticism] becomes less relevant,” he explained. 

Other analysts, including Jeremy Hodges of Bloomberg, have made the case that EVs still run cleaner than gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicles in the long run, even when they're directly powered by a coal-fired power plant.

The EV critics’ double standard

Further, the characterization that EVs alone are responsible for heavy emissions during recharging is not an accurate critique, some experts say.

David Reichmuth, a senior vehicles engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists, points out the double standard sometimes applied to evaluating emissions from fuel production. Gasoline-powered vehicles, too, can’t just be assessed at the tailpipe. Vehicles with conventional internal combustion engines (ICEs) are also responsible for emissions during crude oil extraction, the refinery process and their transportation to filling stations.

When assessing the true emissions of each vehicle type in a state-by-state study, Reichmuth found that driving the most inefficient EV still resulted in fewer emissions than any gasoline car on the market, in almost every state. In upstate New York, for example, the difference was extreme: Electric vehicles produced one-tenth of an average ICE vehicle’s emissions.

Image courtesy UCS

As the map above shows, your average, run-of-the-mill electric vehicle beats out a gasoline-powered car in nearly every state when it comes to fuel efficiency. Only parts of Minnesota, Illinois and Missouri were able to deliver fuel to gas-powered vehicles efficiently enough for ICE cars to match the 39 to 40 MPG equivalent of EVs. 

EV efficiencies are just warming up

As Le pointed out in his segment on “The Heat,” electric vehicles are only going to become more energy efficient in the future.

Reichmuth’s UCS report highlighted a number of factors driving this rise in efficiency. From 2018 to 2019, the proportion of Americans living in a region where EVs can unlock greater than 50 MPG fuel efficiency surged from 45 percent to 94 percent. Similarly, as of 2018, EVs emit less than conventional 50 MPG vehicles in 22 of the 26 major electricity grid regions in the U.S., up from nine in 2009. 

Meanwhile, electricity sources throughout the U.S. are trending toward lower emissions: From 2009 to 2018, the use of coal for energy declined sharply, from 45 percent of the U.S. energy mix to 28 percent. Meanwhile, the total amount of power sourced from solar and wind power technologies rose from 2 percent to 8 percent.

Can we have our SUVs and electric vehicles, too?

SUVs have long been the subject of criticism for their fuel inefficiency and contribution to emissions, but do they need to go down in history strictly as gasoline hogs and emissions chart toppers? Not necessarily. After all, larger EVs are already hitting the market.

While these larger EVs are less efficient, they only emit 25 percent to 50 percent of the carbon dioxide their gasoline-powered peers do, Reichmuth found. 

Meanwhile, based on regional supply chains, the most inefficient all-electric SUV, the Audi e-tron EV SUV, performed much better than the automaker’s ICE version. After crunching the numbers, Reichmuth found that when comparing Audi’s gasoline SUV to the all-electric model, the EV halved emissions for 8 percent of the U.S. population. Almost three-quarters of the population would see emissions savings from 50 percent to 75 percent by swapping their Audi SUV for an all-electric model, and nearly a fifth would realize savings in excess of 75 percent. 

While not every American can afford an Audi SUV, whether it is gasoline-powered or all-electric, the data nonetheless presents a clear picture of reality, both today and in the future: Switching to electric vehicles results in lower carbon dioxide emissions. Watch for the performance of these vehicles to improve as automakers, from GM to Volkswagen, roll out new all-electric models and introduce new technological innovations. Those emissions savings will only become more efficient as time goes on.

Image credit: Audi

(Image: Filtration ponds at a wastewater treatment facility.) 

In a study released last month, United Nations University’s Institute for Water, Environment and Health found that large amounts of water, nutrients and energy are being flushed away, as it were, in the world’s wastewater streams. Globally, we produce wastewater amounts equivalent to about five times what passes over Niagara Falls in a year. Contained in all that wastewater is enough energy to power all the households in the U.S. and Mexico, enough nutrients to meet 13 percent of global fertilizer needs, and enough water to fill Lake Ontario in four years, according to the study.

Those are staggering figures, but there are some next-step takeaways from the study that should not be overlooked.

We need more and better wastewater data

The study authors acknowledge that even with the impressive numbers they have compiled, data on wastewater is inconsistent or, in some cases, unavailable. This is a recurring problem in the water sector. A lot of assumptions have to be made because the data simply does not exist or is incomplete. 

There is inadequate data on water in both developed and developing regions and at every level of the system, including leaks and losses, infrastructure, policy, quality, and more. To make better decisions, policymakers need more complete and accurate data. One of the ways better data can be gathered is through the deployment of smart water management, including smart water grids—which, like smart appliances or smart electric grids, can more accurately pinpoint flows, leaks and weaknesses. 

Management and recovery should be better integrated

There’s a saying in the energy-efficiency world that the longest distance is that between the boiler room and the board room. In other words: What the people at the data and operations level know is not necessarily what is talked about in the executive suites of utilities and cities. 

Further, in cities in particular, sectors may be siloed, creating more inefficiencies. For example, a city may manage its water, energy and food issues under different jurisdictions that do not coordinate. Better integration would mean that, when addressing wastewater issues, relevant conversations could be had about withdrawing nutrients to help with agriculture or the development of biogas capture. 

For example, the city of San Antonio, Texas, which utilizes municipally-owned water and electric utilities, has high-level coordination of the two sectors. Its Crouse Water Recycling Center is an example of their collaboration: In addition to providing 115 million gallons of recycled water daily, it also generates 1.5 million standard cubic feet of natural gas daily, and 80 percent of the resulting biosolids are processed for use as compost.

Policy and innovation go hand in hand

Smart water technologies continue to advance, but there is still more that needs to be done to develop net-zero energy and energy-positive technologies in the water and wastewater sector. All the innovation in the world will not be worth anything, however, if policymakers and industry leaders do not undertake the necessary changes to implement them. 

Often the barrier to solving water problems is the lack of political and economic will, not a limitation in technology. Pay Drechsel of the International Water Management Institute in Sri Lanka, and one of the study’s authors, noted: "For countries to progress, there is a need to invest in a supportive regulatory and financial environment toward a green economy, and to leverage private capital for resource recovery related business models that are financially feasible and increase cost recovery from municipal wastewater.” 

Innovation can provide the proof that pushes policymakers and business leaders to see the benefits of looking at the entire system. Wastewater is well situated to offer a case in point. Take, for example, this textile mill in India, which needed a solution to a messy problem. The plant’s wastewater contained elevated levels of dissolved solids, even after two rounds of treatment. Downstream farmers went to the government about the resulting waterway pollution, but the most obvious fix —a thermal water treatment system— was an expensive proposition for the textile mill.

Tina Arrowood, a principal research scientist at DuPont Water Solutions, worked with the mill to innovate a new system that made more economic sense. Based on proven reverse osmosis technology, the system her team created isn’t just cheaper — it’s also more robust and effective than thermal methods: The plant was able to recover more than 90 percent of the water for operational reuse, reducing the need for freshwater withdrawals, and recycle the salts for resale.

“Technology companies can learn from industries on the ground to create tailor-made solutions to problems,” Arrowood told us. “Creating a circular economy in water-stressed regions can then help pay for systems” like the one used at the textile mill. 

Innovations like these show proof of concept that can push policymakers to support creative responses to tough water problems. The U.N. University study presents some impressive figures, and there is every reason to believe we should be able to take that data and do something meaningful with it. As our cities continue to grow and climate change advances, the pressures on our water supplies will increase. Innovative policy and economic solutions are already here for the taking.

This article series is sponsored by DuPont Water Solutions and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team. 

Image: Ivan Bandura/Unsplash

The following conversation about mental health is an excerpt from Cisco’s 2019 CSR Report. To find out more, read the full report here.

We want everyone to know that it’s okay to not be okay. Cisco is changing the conversation about mental health issues within our company.

Over the past year, Cisco has made it a priority to not only end the taboo against talking about mental health, but encourage people to ask for help. It all started with an email. In 2018, in the face of growing concerns about mental health in society, Cisco CEO Chuck Robbins sent an email to all Cisco employees. In it, he expressed Cisco’s concern for those who are struggling, sharing that no one needs to go it alone. The response was overwhelming. Robbins received more than 100 replies from employees saying thanks and sharing stories of themselves and their loved ones. Since then, even more people have courageously spoken about personal struggles in company blog posts and the Cisco Beat. This response has awakened us to an issue that wasn’t being addressed.

Consider the statistics: about one in five U.S. adults lives with a mental health condition. Yet many people are still uncomfortable talking about these issues. Cisco is breaking the silence. We want everyone to know that it’s okay to not be okay. By decreasing the stigma and broadening the resources we offer, we hope to encourage people to get the help they need. And change the conversation about mental health across our industry.

Here are some ways Cisco is increasing awareness

• The Safe to Talk community on Cisco’s intranet includes videos, links to internal and external resources, and employee stories
• On Leader Day, we trained leaders across Cisco on how to recognize signs of mental illness and support their teams
• Our CEO has written, spoken, and tweeted publicly about the importance of this issue
• In the U.K., mental health “first aiders” help fellow employees access resources

Mental health initiatives

• Improving access to care in our largest U.S. medical plans. Employees will now pay the same coinsurance, whether they go in or out of network for mental health treatment.
• Offering confidential 24/7 visits with counselors as part of our global Employee Assistance Program, and in-person visits in our LifeConnections health centers. We increased the number of free visits to 10 in the U.S. to align with what we offer globally.
• Continuing our support as founder of Connected North, which uses Cisco collaboration technology to deliver mental wellness programming to remote, underserved communities in Canada.

Plans for every family

Cisco’s global benefits are designed to support employees and their loved ones through all stages of life. Our comprehensive benefits package includes medical, dental, and vision plans; disability coverage; and life insurance to help employees stay healthy and secure their families’ well-being.

Caring for one’s health can also mean having someone to talk to who can offer advice and support. Our global Expert Medical Opinion program offers peace of mind in the face of a major medical diagnosis or treatment decision, including those related to mental health. A simple phone call connects employees and eligible family members, including parents and in-laws, to a leading physician in the specialty they need for an expert second opinion at no cost to them.

Similarly, our global Employee Assistance Program helps employees and families better manage family issues, relationship struggles, financial issues, anxiety, stress, and more. Visits are free and confidential. As of October 2019, we increased the number of covered visits in the U.S. from eight to 10 sessions per concern, in alignment with what is available globally. Employees pay the same coinsurance for in- or out-of-network mental health treatment, should they need additional care, through our largest medical plans.

Mental health is health and Cisco aims to treat it that way.

Read more in Cisco's 2019 CSR report.

Previously published on Cisco's blog and the 3BL Media Newsroom.

Image credit: Pixabay